When one talks about the "Holy Trinity", it is usually the Ultra wide zoom f2.8 (ex: Nikon 14-24), the mid range f2.8 (24-70), and the tele f2.8 (70-200). Such a combo doesn't come cheap. As an alternative, I've also chosen to get the Nikon Z 14-30 f4S, the Z24-120 f4S, and the Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S (I also two of three of the "holy trinity"). What are some other "trinities" you have gone with?
Now that the 24-120 f4 is available, I would also go for the 100-400 in conjunction with the 24-120. For my landscapes needs this two lenses would suffice. Note that I currently have none of these lenses.
I still shoot with my D850 as well. On that camera I use the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4 the most. Occasionally I use the 20mm f1.8. This is also a lens I like a lot and I probably will keep it even if I would go full mirrorless some day.
On the Z front I have a Z50 and a Z6II. I have the kit lenses on both cameras and the 28mm. Whenever I go out with the Z6II, I use the Z 24-70 f4 and the AFS 70-200 f4.
___________________________________________
Pascal Hibon
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/phibon/
Website: https://pascalhibon.net/
This last Christmas sale on the original Z7 + 24-70mm f4 was just too much for me to pass up. That doesn't mean I'm moving strongly to the Z system, however. Shortly after the new year, I increased my F-mount lens collection by purchasing a 16-35mm f4 and a 70-200mm f4, both used. They go nicely on my D780. Since then, I've really come to appreciate my new DSLR/Z trinity. I use the Z7 as my walking around camera/lens and when I'm trying for something really special, I have 16mm - 200mm covered one way or another.
The attached photo was taken with the D780 16-35mm f4 @ 16mm, 0.60 Sec., F8, 100 ISO.
Thank you for the picture
The 17-28 2.8, 28-70 2.8, and upcoming 70-180 2.8 I think will be the budget/lightweight pro kit for alot of people.
Tell you right now, if I was still shooting weddings, I'd absolutely be running the 17-28 over the 14-xx's or the 70-180 over a 70-200 just on weight and ergonomics alone.
Skip the midrange and use the f/1.8 or 1.2 primes and call it a day. All the brightness you need, without the back/neck pain.
@mark-laidlaw Its a good choice of lenses, although for me, the reach is a little short. What's attractive about your choices, is that they are all f2.8 lenses, which is great for low light, and subject isolation.
My current trinities are:
1. Z 14-30mm/ Z 24-120mm/ AF-P 70-300mm + FTZ, OR
2. Z 14-30mm/ Z 24-120/ Z 100-400mm
I usually take only two of the three lenses out on a shoot with the 24-120mm being allways in my bag. The 100-400mm goes to airshows whereas the 70-300mm is my preferred tele focal range for everything else. I'm seriously thinking of swapping the f-mount 70-300mm for the new Tamron Z version and am awaiting Spencer's review before puling the trigger.
@richiero That's the thing, vs the older idea of going f/4 on those zooms, these are at least all 2.8.
And although they're not as crisp as the S versions, they're plenty sharp for wedding photography, and as a whole, they're still better than the F-Mount versions!
@hms, no. 2 is also my choice. But I also own the Z 24-70 f2.8S, and the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S, for wedding and event photography. I no longer own any F mount lenses. Wanna buy an FTZ😀
My holy trinity for landscapes right now is:
- 14-24mm f2.8
- 24-70mm f4
- 100-400 f4.5-5.6
At some point I hope I can have a wildlife holy trinity:
- 24-70 f2.8
- 100-400mm f4.5-5.6
- 600mm TC
I haven't yet nerved myself to drop half of a nice new car on a lens though, so that remains a dream.